Internet Blacklist Bill

[White Eagle]

Nevermind. Could not get the links right

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

Nevermind. Could not get the links right

You mean like this:Link ?


I am getting so tired of moronic knee-jerk activists who see any type of banning as "blacklisting" or "censorship". This is not "we're taking your site away because you have naughty pictures"; this is "you are committing a crime". I appreciate that there is some gray area in pirating a movie or TV series (in some cases it can act as advertising). However, when your site's sole purpose of being is to help others obtain pirated anything, you've crossed any such line and are straight into breaking the law. Worse, you're doing in such a way as too ensure that some government somewhere will catch you with a basic Google search.

Yeesh.

RG

 

[White Eagle]

You mean like this:Link ?


I am getting so tired of moronic knee-jerk activists who see any type of banning as "blacklisting" or "censorship". This is not "we're taking your site away because you have naughty pictures"; this is "you are committing a crime". I appreciate that there is some gray area in pirating a movie or TV series (in some cases it can act as advertising). However, when your site's sole purpose of being is to help others obtain pirated anything, you've crossed any such line and are straight into breaking the law. Worse, you're doing in such a way as too ensure that some government somewhere will catch you with a basic Google search.

Yeesh.

RG

Yeah, that's it. Thanks. It came in an email and then my links were to my email account. I couldn't figure how to get around it, then just said fuck it!

Thanks again

 

[hotatlboi]

You mean like this:Link ?
I am getting so tired of moronic knee-jerk activists who see any type of banning as "blacklisting" or "censorship". This is not "we're taking your site away because you have naughty pictures"; this is "you are committing a crime". I appreciate that there is some gray area in pirating a movie or TV series (in some cases it can act as advertising). However, when your site's sole purpose of being is to help others obtain pirated anything, you've crossed any such line and are straight into breaking the law. Worse, you're doing in such a way as too ensure that some government somewhere will catch you with a basic Google search.

Yeesh.
RG

Sorry, this is a terrible idea.

1. It will create a system whereby either the government or media companies can determine if a website is acceptable and then remove it based on solely a corporate media exec's viewpoint of whether or not it violates the law. That is terrible. That is why all such laws like this (which Leahy and Hatch are almost always behind) should be called the "Protect RIAA/MPAA profits Act".

2. It opens the door to abuse and things getting added that do not violate the law, or who's "sole purpose" as you put it, is not violating the law, but may host some infringing content which should be combatted more specifically.

3. It creates a top down censorship regime that could easily morph into something like China should a less freedom supporting people obtain control of the government.

If a US based site is violating the law, that site's owner can already be sued and the site taken down through existing legal channels.

 

[White Eagle]

Al Franken has been working on net neutrality for awhile and I got this email from him this am.
Lets see if I can get the links right...........


http://alfranken.com/index.php/splash/commit2click/c

Take action now!

Not only are Republicans blocking regulations to protect the Internet from a corporate takeover, they’re actually calling net neutrality a government takeover.

Net neutrality is the status quo. It's the way the Internet operates right now: free and open. And it’s up to us to make sure it stays that way. Stand up for truth, logic, and the free and open Internet by taking just a few minutes to help spread the word about net neutrality.

Click here to share on Facebook
Click here to share on Twitter
Click here to email your friends about our campaign
Copy and paste this into your instant messenger status:
“Help Al protect the Internet: http:********/kvwTC0”
Tell at least three friends the real story of net neutrality -- no clicking required
If you haven't yet signed our petition to save net neutrality, click here to add your name.

Want to help more but are out of time? Click and drag this link to your bookmark bar so you can easily come back later: SAVE THE INTERNET

Can we count on you?
796
1186Share

The links look good so go at em.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

S
3. It creates a top down censorship regime that could easily morph into something like China should a less freedom supporting people obtain control of the government.

I agree with most of which you say, except this. Because there is the need for an actual court order (just like a warrant it needs to go through a judge), someone is going to act as a breaker for it. That is, you can't just wake up and decide to ban a dozen or so sites because you want to; there needs to be an actual legal reason for banning the site.

Also, how precisely is this censorship? You are banning a site because it is breaking an actual law, not because it bothers your ethics. Okay, technically it is, but that's not a legitimate reason to ban the site. It has to be violating copyright/trademark law. The site, as per its summary, must be encouraging or providing the means for others to pirate IP's. Please explain...

White Eagle: How is this a net neutrality issue...?

RG

 

[hotatlboi]

I agree with most of which you say, except this. Because there is the need for an actual court order (just like a warrant it needs to go through a judge), someone is going to act as a breaker for it. That is, you can't just wake up and decide to ban a dozen or so sites because you want to; there needs to be an actual legal reason for banning the site.

Also, how precisely is this censorship? You are banning a site because it is breaking an actual law, not because it bothers your ethics. Okay, technically it is, but that's not a legitimate reason to ban the site. It has to be violating copyright/trademark law. The site, as per its summary, must be encouraging or providing the means for others to pirate IP's. Please explain...

It creates a mechanism whereby unwarranted censorship COULD be implemented. I'm not saying the proposed implementation currently would be overly draconian, but it has to start somewhere. If this mechanism is created, then in the future more unwarranted rules could be imposed. This happened in Turkey recently. They had a minimal censorship system in place and just voted to expand it. http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/n.php?n=do-not-touch-my-internet-chanted-thousands-2011-05-15

White Eagle: How is this a net neutrality issue...?

It isn't, it's a completely separate issue.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

Specifically, how would it create a "mechanism whereby unwarranted censorship COULD be implemented"? The system in Turkey is a content-filtering system; that is, certain words and concepts are not allowed to get to people. This is not what is happening under PROTECT-IP. That is, the sites that are being banned need to be doing something illegal in the first place; they are not being banned because they are morally debatable, such as a porn site, or because of its content, such a s site like Glenn Beck's should be, but because they are doing something illegal.

In other words, the sites that would be banned under PROTECT-IP are not being "silenced" because of what they are saying, but because of what they are doing. Please make an argument where my stealing something from you is covered by free speech...

RG

 

[hotatlboi]

Specifically, how would it create a "mechanism whereby unwarranted censorship COULD be implemented"?

What I meant by that mainly was if the rules change in the future. Like, you might put this system in place now and say you are only going to take down illegal sites, but in the future another government could say they want to also remove sites with certain content. If you create an easy mechanism to disable sites you don't like, the temptation will be there to expand the rationale for it's use.

But Also...

This is not what is happening under PROTECT-IP. That is, the sites that are being banned need to be doing something illegal in the first place

A corporate media exec should not be determining which sites violate the law or if they do, the extent of the legal relief warranted.

Like, if a corporate media exec sees a pirated DVD for sale on ebay, that is not grounds to take ebay offline.

If a corporate media exec sees a pirated video on Youtube, that is not grounds to remove Youtube from the internet. But that is what they try to do.

This bill will greatly increase the avenues for large media companies to shut down parts of the internet they don't like.

 

[BostonPirate]

this happens to coincide with a new invention of an internet address system. Porn sites are going to be getting a .XXX site to replace the .com addresses.

If they can pass legislation state by state to block the ,XXX sites using this Bill, anti porn legislation could stop entire states from using this site.

Thats just one example of how this could be used to censor internet porn in a negative way. The republicans were trying to get rid of it when they held the congress and white house but couldn't figure out a way.

If they gain power this bill provides a vehicle for their goal.

 

[hotatlboi]

this happens to coincide with a new invention of an internet address system. Porn sites are going to be getting a .XXX site to replace the .com addresses.

No they aren't.

1. They know that will make it easier to block them, decreasing their audience.

2. A lot of branding/marketing/links exist for .com addresses, they don't want to lose that.

3. There is no mechanism whereby this would be enforced, that is the only way that would happen.

Some porn sites might get a .xxx in addition to a .com, but they won't be replacing their existing domains with a .xxx.

 

[White Eagle]

I agree with most of which you say, except this. Because there is the need for an actual court order (just like a warrant it needs to go through a judge), someone is going to act as a breaker for it. That is, you can't just wake up and decide to ban a dozen or so sites because you want to; there needs to be an actual legal reason for banning the site.

Also, how precisely is this censorship? You are banning a site because it is breaking an actual law, not because it bothers your ethics. Okay, technically it is, but that's not a legitimate reason to ban the site. It has to be violating copyright/trademark law. The site, as per its summary, must be encouraging or providing the means for others to pirate IP's. Please explain...

White Eagle: How is this a net neutrality issue...?

RG

Well, I see where y'all are going with the topic. It is different. I was looking at it as a corporate takeover/government takeover. I figured it was a related topic.

 

[hotatlboi]

but 1000 people illegally downloading one of my works instead of buying it from me makes an enormous difference to me personally.

But if you are assuming that those 1000 people had both the means and the intention to buy your work in lieu of downloading it then you are sorely mistaken. That's the most annoying thing about the "piracy loss" figures from the industry.

Number of download * MSRP != your actual loss

 

[BostonPirate]

No they aren't.

1. They know that will make it easier to block them, decreasing their audience.

2. A lot of branding/marketing/links exist for .com addresses, they don't want to lose that.

3. There is no mechanism whereby this would be enforced, that is the only way that would happen.

Some porn sites might get a .xxx in addition to a .com, but they won't be replacing their existing domains with a .xxx.

good to hear.

thanks for the info

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

What I meant by that mainly was if the rules change in the future. Like, you might put this system in place now and say you are only going to take down illegal sites, but in the future another government could say they want to also remove sites with certain content. If you create an easy mechanism to disable sites you don't like, the temptation will be there to expand the rationale for it's use.

Note that the sites themselves are not illegal; it's the content on them that is. Also, arguing that any law can be made into one that allows for censorship is sort of silly; the problem is that you can argue that for any law.

A corporate media exec should not be determining which sites violate the law or if they do, the extent of the legal relief warranted.

Not trying to be a jerk, but you need to read the linked material. A corporate exec does not have any power to lower the boom. They can suggest a site, but that's it; the DOJ must investigate and then receive a court order in order to shut a site down.

Could you quote the part where it says the corporation acts on its behest?

Like, if a corporate media exec sees a pirated DVD for sale on ebay, that is not grounds to take ebay offline.

Exactly. But he can ask Ebay to take the seller offline. In fact, Ebay doesn't allow bootlegs.

If a corporate media exec sees a pirated video on Youtube, that is not grounds to remove Youtube from the internet. But that is what they try to do.

Again, correct. However, Youtube can and does take off videos that infringe on others IP rights.

In both cases, they are, using the logic you have presented, censoring those people they have removed. I'm just saying that removing someone that infringes on my rights as an IP owner is not censorship.

This bill will greatly increase the avenues for large media companies to shut down parts of the internet they don't like.

You have yet to show any evidence for this beyond saying so. Care to show me in the PROTECT-IP precis?


RG

 

[Corny]

robin,

it doesn't matter who has which power now. it doesn't matter if a court order is needed or not now.

it implements a framework for censorship. a framework that can be and will be abused.

first it is only against "crimes" and you need a judge to confirm any ban. than there will be "severe crimes" that demand "immediate action" and the judge will be skippable. since this is becoming too much work for the police, the companies themselves will be able to add websites to the blacklist.

sounds silly? think about it .. already today the companies do get your private data from your ISP without a court order ... something that used to be different, too.

you guys always argument for your gun laws with the distrust into the government that could possibly act against it's own people. but you blindly trust them with the rest?

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

robin,

it doesn't matter who has which power now. it doesn't matter if a court order is needed or not now.

Yeah, it does. That court order acts as a check on the DOJ.

first it is only against "crimes" and you need a judge to confirm any ban. than there will be "severe crimes" that demand "immediate action" and the judge will be skippable. since this is becoming too much work for the police, the companies themselves will be able to add websites to the blacklist.

Oh. I see. Conspiracy theories replace actual logic. Neat!

sounds silly? think about it .. already today the companies do get your private data from your ISP without a court order ... something that used to be different, too.

Not really. That information has always been available.

you guys always argument for your gun laws with the distrust into the government that could possibly act against it's own people. but you blindly trust them with the rest?

Subtitles, please...?

RG

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

But if you are assuming that those 1000 people had both the means and the intention to buy your work in lieu of downloading it then you are sorely mistaken. That's the most annoying thing about the "piracy loss" figures from the industry.

And that's where you lose the crowd...For most of the artists out there, we try to get some profit from our work, but arguments like this really don't encourage creative works. Weird, isn't it: People bitch and moan about the lack of unique and creative works of art, but aren't interested in supporting it. Download the free pirated version of it, GREAT! Actually pay for a copy? Nah. Bad artist! Must only do things for free!

On the other hand, legislation comes along that can actual support the artist by helping protect his rights to his creation, allowing him to get paid for his efforts, and people scream censorship. Aren't the real censors here, the ones preventing art from going forward, the bootleggers and pirates?

RG

 

[Corny]

Oh. I see. Conspiracy theories replace actual logic. Neat!

nope. history.

but you are not the first, not able to learn from it.

 

[RobinGoodfellow]

nope. history.

but you are not the first, not able to learn from it.

Oh noes. Generic Defense 97, GO!

Sorry, I'm just not drinking the Kool-Aid on this one. The problem with most of the defense of this bill is coming from a combined need to be able to get anything you want for free and to stick it to The Man. Too many people are forgetting about the smaller businesses and up-and-comers who need some of the protection of law in order to do business. Those smaller content providers need to be able to make a decent living doing what they love to do, and pirates do sometimes shut them down.

I'm sorry that you have such a callous disregard for anyone trying to elevate themselves. Better luck next life!

RG